KUMAR KHUDAL @ UMA Vs. STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. B. Gogoi, Amicus Curiae, and Ms. S. Jahan, Additional Public Prosecutor, Assam. The material facts of the prosecution case disclose that one Sugri Khodal is the deceased. PW2 is the son of the deceased. The accused is running a poultry firm. PW2 had taken a chicken on credit basis. The amount was not paid. The matter was arbitrated by elders and it was decided that PW2 should pay the value of the chicken purchased, to the accused.

(2.) On 23.12.2007, at around 7.00 p.m., the accused went to the house of the PW2 to demand payment of the money; PW2 could not pay the money. The accused got angry and tried to assault PW2. PW2, in order to escape, ran into the house. The deceased was sitting outside the house by the side of a fire place to worm himself since it was a winter. The accused took a wooden piece from the spot and hit on the head of the deceased. The deceased sustained injuries, he was taken to hospital on the next day and police was also informed.

(3.) The complaint was given by the son (PW2) naming that the accused has caused the death. The police conducted inquest (panchanama). The dead body is subjected to post mortem examination. The post mortem report discloses that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of fracture whole frontal bone and wound in the forehead.